I still believe the odds are against the 5th DCA allowing the appeal. I think in the petition the defense should have tried to distinguish Zimmerman's situation from Bill Kasper Const. Co., Inc. v. Morrison rather than waiting for the state to bring it up.
Assuming Crump refers to authority that is opposing the petition, O'Mara can respond to the argument raised by Crump. I don't recall any remarks by the state, taking a position on defense being afforded the right to depose Crump, so I'm not sure the state would even respond.
Thanks for the many case citations, including the most recent. I don't have much faith that the court system does the right thing when the case is a political one. But, the courts of appeal are one step removed from public pressure, compared with the trial court, and I would not be surprised to find that Judge Nelson is deliberately tossing issues up for appeal. I've generally figured she'd do so when called on to render an opinion as to 776.032 immunity, finding that the evidence doesn't admit a decision, and then tossing it to the jury.
Talk about messy, the court will seat a jury, O'Mara, if he doesn't get a favorable decision on an immunity motion, would appeal. What to do with the jury? Have them wait the time it takes the DCA to review the lower court's order? Heck, even waiting for the lower court to compose an opinion and order is a delay between case presentation and charging the jury.
Anyway, back to the subject you raised, I think the DCA will order Nelson to allow Crump to be deposed. It's a low risk decision, in that it doesn't represent any particular direction in favor of or against Zimmerman. It's just allowing defendant access to information that may be relevant for trial. Crump himself expressed, in open court, that he wanted to be helpful, that he had nothing to hide, and similar sentiment. Seems that everybody's stated principles are in perfect harmony - get the truth out, or as much as is humanly possible, to facilitate reaching a just conclusion.